On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 09:59:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 08:37:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Why doesn't the 'g' flag appear in this table?
> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#POSIX-EMBEDDED-OPTIONS-TAB
Sorry if you get this twice but I use Nabble and didn't subscribe to the list
so my originals got put into the verification queue. I've subscribed now
and am re-posting hoping it will go through clean.
See my self-quote comment and my direct comment at the end.
David Johnston wrote
>
> Tom La
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 08:37:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Why doesn't the 'g' flag appear in this table?
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#POSIX-EMBEDDED-OPTIONS-TABLE
> Is it because the table has generic pattern modififers and '
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 08:37:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Why doesn't the 'g' flag appear in this table?
>
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#POSIX-EMBEDDED-OPTIONS-TABLE
>
> I see text here that says:
>
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9
Why doesn't the 'g' flag appear in this table?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#POSIX-EMBEDDED-OPTIONS-TABLE
I see text here that says:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/functions-matching.html#FUNCTIONS-POSIX-REGEXP
Other suppor